The story of the faster-than-light neutrinos is a rather unusual one. The good folks at Gran Sasso seem embarrassed by their own results. They had checked, rechecked, and re-rechecked their data, and investigated all the sources of systematic error they could think of, eliminating them all. Yet those pesky neutrinos were still arriving 60ns too soon. You might think this would be a cause for celebration—after all, finding exciting new physics on the horizon is supposed to be every physicist's dream, right?
The truth is that they knew they were not just getting close to a fire, but standing in the flames while taking a gasoline shower. The literature was going to fill up with papers that, in one way or another, stated they were wrong—very wrong. Two such papers have now come out, and they show just how hot the fire is going to get.
It's important to understand why this result is going to be aggressively attacked but the data probably won't. I don't think anyone has said the data is wrong; rather, they've suggested that the data has an intrinsic, but unknown, systematic error in it. A naive approach, when confronted with data that disagrees with fundamental models of how the Universe works, would be to say that this result shows that our model is wrong. In this case, we must toss out the standard model and replace it with something new.
But physics rarely works like that. Instead, we tend to hold on to what works, using it where it does work, and modify the theory so that it can accommodate new data. In fact, a classic example of this is special relativity, which accommodates a fixed speed of light by modifying Galilean relativity. (Incidentally, this is also the theory that established that the speed of light in a vacuum was the ultimate velocity.)
Researchers are now asking "What tweaks to the standard model can accommodate this result?" and "What are the consequences of those tweaks?" This latter question is pretty significant. Every change to the standard model is going to change its predictions, and these predictions are likely to apply across wide swathes of particle physics, not just to particles going faster than the speed of light.
Two papers examining these consequences have now come out. In both, the authors assume that the speed of light is no longer the ultimate speed limit, an assumption called a violation of Lorentz invariance.
Both papers note that there wasn't any sign of faster than light neutrinos from a well observed supernova in 1987. However, that might simply mean that there was insufficient energy to accelerate the neutrinos to a speed measurably greater than that of light. That would mean that there is some kind of scaling law that relates the energy involved in creating the neutrino to its final speed. If that assumption is correct, those scaling relationships will have consequences that should already be apparent in existing data sets.
Them neutrinos have the wrong energy
OK, said a pair of researcher from Boston University, let's imagine that neutrinos can go faster than light, but that space-time remains pretty much the same—that is, conservation of momentum and energy continues. Under these conditions, the currently unknown processes should occur. One such process is that a muon neutrino that's moving faster than the speed of light will start to radiate electrons and positrons, losing energy as it does so.
The energy of the neutrinos produced at CERN are on the order 17GeV. But according to the authors' calculations, any neutrino with an energy in excess of 12.5GeV that's moving faster than light should quickly slow down, losing its energy via a cascade of electrons and positrons. Essentially, the energy spectrum of the neutrinos detected by the OPERA experiment should be completely different from the energy spectrum of the neutrinos created at CERN. And it's not.
Going further, the authors examined how this would effect the spectrum of neutrinos that are produced when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere. These neutrinos have an energy spectrum ranging from 1GeV up to 1TeV. Many of them will traverse not just the atmosphere, but also the entire radius of the Earth before detection. And yet their energy spectra show no signs of the influence of having radiated off electrons and positrons.
From this, the authors conclude that the OPERA result is likely to be a systematic error.
Eat the Pi before it decays away
A trio of researchers went a bit further than this and examined what would happen to the particles (called pions) that are used to produce fast-moving neutrinos. Like previous work, they assume that energy and momentum are conserved. Aside from that, they assume that the neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, but the pions that produce them by decaying to a muon and a muon neutrino, are limited by the speed of light, as are the muons.
The researchers examined how the energy and momentum of the pion are divided between the muon and the neutrino. Measurements and calculations (using the standard model) have placed this at about 0.3—that is, the neutrino carries away about 0.3 of the pion's momentum when it decays. But if this is true, then the neutrinos would have to be traveling more slowly, though they could still be faster than the speed of light. Essentially, we cannot have both the momentum division that we observe and the neutrino velocity that we apparently observe.
Maybe the momentum division is not working like we think it is. How much momentum would the neutrino need to take away in order to go as fast as the folks at Gran Sasso observed them going? It turns out that they should only have about five percent of the momentum. Allowing for this, the researchers then calculated how long they would expect the pion to live before it decayed. It turns out that it should be six times longer than we've observed, well outside of experimental margins of error.
What does this tell us
We are now in a very interesting situation, because the assumptions used in both papers are very straightforward: energy and momentum are conserved and linked to each other in ways we think we understand quite well. Yet, they cannot be true under all conditions if the OPERA results are actually correct. Ideas like conservation of energy and momentum are at the very foundation of all of physics. In short, the OPERA results, should they stand, will strike deep at the heart of most established physics. But it should also be pointed out that these are more than ideas—conservation been verified to be true in all but the most exceptional circumstances (e.g., the OPERA result).
Some new physics is out there somewhere, because we already know that gravity and quantum mechanics have fundamental disagreements with each other. However, although there may be a deeper layer of foundations yet to be built in physics, whatever new ideas we develop must smoothly transition to the physics we know and love today. And right now, it appears that the OPERA results don't provide this sort of transition.
Physical Review Letters, 2011, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.181803
Physical Review Letters, 2011, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.251801